April 7th is one of the few dates anyone in the UK can expect to read much about Rwanda in the news as the world marks the 20th anniversary of the 1994 genocide. Last night I attended a moving rememberance ceremony in the Chapel of St Mary's Undercroft in the House of Commons to mark Kwibuka 20, the theme of this year's commemoration week. Translated into English, it simply means 'remember'.

Substantially less was written about what Rwandans themselves are doing to ensure 'Never Again' means exactly that. There is, after all, little point in them turning to the UN or any other power to do it for them - a lesson they learnt the hard way twenty years ago. However, if my brief experience of the young men and women set to lead their country come the 40th anniversary is anything to go by, the future of The Land of a Thousand Hills is in very safe hands.

The wall next to the Head Teacher's office bears a plaque listing the school's core values, the last of which is "we are Gashora girls, destined to greatness".

The Academy is normally empty during the holidays in December, but for two weeks last December, it was the home of Debate Camp 2013, the first of its kind, and the creation of student-led charity, Idebate Rwanda. The Students were mostly in their final year of high school, some of the lucky few to be enrolled in secondary education. Several were as young as 12, including little Victor, who quickly became the star of the camp following a stunning speech on the importance of education, delivered in a style that can only be described as 'Eminem meets Barack Obama'.

The aim of the camp was hugely ambitious: to give students the tools to change their lives and their communities by teaching them to think critically, speak freely, and solve problems creatively. You might expect a programme like this to be the work of a global NGO, a UN initiative, or at least a government programme. No, the people responsible for this are a team of volunteers in their mid-20s. Jean Michel is a teacher who studied in America and now tirelessly devotes himself to raising the standard of education in his homeland. Samuel is a student at the LSE, and a phenomenal ambassador for the organisation. Christie, Alex, and Arnold work tirelessly on the ground to expand and support the charity's growing network of school debate clubs. Together, they are driven by one goal: 'Never Again'.

The Central London Debating Society team (from left to right): Jordan Anderson, Tony Koutsoumbos, Gwyn Redgers, and Jack Watling

I had been invited, along with a team of my fellow trainers from the Central London Debating Society, to write and deliver the training programme for the inaugural camp. We were each assigned a group of between 25-35 students who we mentored for the duration of our time there, working together for 6 hours a day. We took them through the basics of public speaking and problem solving, using a series of games and interactive exercises, before delving into the worlds of logic and rhetoric. One day they would analyse the speeches of Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi, the next they would examine the arguments for and against economic and political union in East Africa.

Put simply, a democratic society is a debating society.

It is the firm conviction of Sam and Jean-Michel that debating has an instrumental role to play in Rwanda's transition to a stable democracy and the prevention of another genocide ever taking place. Great progress has already been made through radical reform of the country's economy and its laws, and now charities like Idebate are leading the way on much needed social reforms. Embedding democracy in Rwanda means overcoming the fear of self-expression and the reluctance to question authority, ingrained through decades of unchallenged propaganda. Put simply, a democratic society is a debating society.

It is with great pride, therefore, that I watched my students debate the limits of free speech, the future of Rwanda's economy, and the priorities of its foreign policy, knowing that somewhere among this assortment of gifted and dedicated young people, I could well have been watching the future President of Rwanda. Perhaps it will be Bruce, the 18 year old student on a mission to drive up the number of children being enrolled in Rwanda's growing network of technical schools, known as TVETs, who models himself on Martin Luther King. Maybe it will be Joyce, who is preparing for her final year exams so she can study to be an airline pilot in the UK or North America, and spent Christmas last year volunteering in a shelter for genocide survivors.

Future Presidents of Rwanda in the making? (Joyce and Bruce, second and third from the right in the back row)

The success of Debate Camp 2013 has led to the rapid expansion of the initiative with the first East African debating tournament due to take place this summer. Debate Camp 2014 will follow in December, taking in the poorer communities of the Rwandan countryside and including schools from as far afield as Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Burundi. The camps are supported entirely by individual donations and grants from philanthropic organisations. However, the link debating forges between academic development and good governance means there is good reason for governments to get involved too.

One wonders why the world insists on re-visiting Rwanda's violent past when it has such a promising future. To be sure, we must never forget, which is why last night's touching service was so important. Today though, when I think of Rwanda, I think of Joyce, Bruce, and Victor, and celebrate the victory of a bright future over a dark past.]]>What We Can Learn About the Farage-Clegg Debate From a Concert Violinist Pretending to Be a Buskertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.44615682014-03-28T15:31:13-04:002014-05-28T05:59:01-04:00Tony Koutsoumboshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-koutsoumbos/
I know what you're thinking: what does a bizarre social experiment in a Washington DC metro station have to do with two British politicians debating whether the UK should stay in or leave the European Union; quite a lot, actually.

Joshua Bell's experiment posed a very important question: 'Is a sublime piece of music still sublime whether it is played by a $100 per night concert musician or a street busker? You might expect the answer to be yes, but it appears the good commuters of Washington DC would disagree.

The same can be said of an argument. If it truly makes sense, should it not convince me whether it comes out of the mouth of a respected professor or their first year student? As we prepare to watch two highly recognisable, silver tongued, and well-dressed politicians take to the airwaves for the second time next Wednesday, this question takes on new importance.

What evidence is there that we are not currently assessing our leaders' arguments on their merit alone?

The second giveaway was the line of questioning from both the moderator and the audience, which focused more on airing pet grievances and questioning the trustworthiness of the two leaders than scrutinising their actual arguments.

It presents our democracy with a real problem if the way we vote is decided more by how our politicians look or sound than by the substance of their arguments. What we really need is an engaged electorate that responds to bold assertions and sweeping statements by taking them to their logical conclusion, and holds their leaders to account when they contradict themselves or answer serious questions with bombastic rhetoric.

There are signs of progress as more and more schools embrace debating as a way of training their pupils to think critically and speak confidently. One school I taught at last year offers philosophy classes to children as young as six. I still remember the headmistress beaming about one particular pupil who told her the only way he knew his chair was real was because he thought it was real, which is the only way he could prove anything existed, including himself. He had never even heard of Rene Descartes.

So what have we learned about the Farage Clegg debate from a concert violinist pretending to be a busker? We've learnt that just as understanding what constitutes a sublime piece of music is central to appreciating it anywhere, knowing what constitutes a good argument is vital to deciding whether Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage has made the better case for their position, regardless of how we personally feel about them or their politics.]]>Pro-Europeans Must Get Behind the Prime Minister to Avoid a 'Brexit'tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25490172013-01-25T07:34:36-05:002013-03-27T05:12:01-04:00Tony Koutsoumboshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-koutsoumbos/Prime Minister's Questions. My gut reaction? I was incensed. What an 'omni-shambles' I thought. An in/out referendum is not a bad idea and retaining the consent of the British people to speak for them on the European stage is essential, but the prime minister's proposals to wait four years to have a referendum, and hope that negotiations went his way in the meantime, was surely the worst of both worlds.

The last time I wrote about British attitudes to the European Union, I decried a lack of vision and an obsession with scaremongering in British politics. I am thankful, therefore, to the prime minister for offering a positive vision of Europe's future in an increasingly hostile and unpredictable world. Furthermore, I am glad that he agrees the best way for Britain to realise this vision is as an engaged and committed member of the European Union.

My concerns remain about the uncertainty the strategy he outlined will surely cause, yet nevertheless my overall reaction changed from one of fury to sympathy. Sympathy for an embattled prime minister trying to do what is right for his country, but stuck between a rock and a hard place with the rise of Ukip threatening to marginalise his party among its more eurosceptic voters, and many of his own MPs making his task even harder by continuously rebelling against him as punishment for not taking an equally hard line on Europe.

I like David Cameron, as much as I may disagree with him on issues such as Europe, but I fear for him. He clearly realised that his party's obsession with weakening the UK's relationship with the rest of the EU and his right-wing rivals' commitment to leaving altogether, was overshadowing his agenda for economic recovery. So, by giving them what they wanted: an in/out referendum in return for securing his re-election in 2015, he would be freeing himself up to focus on the immediate tasks at hand for the remainder of his first term, and save having to answer the European question for his second.

Therein lies the rub.

Mr Cameron said in his speech: "With courage and conviction I believe we can achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can thrive. And when the referendum comes let me say now that if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my heart and soul."

Surely this must also mean, however, that if he is not successful in negotiating such a settlement, he will be forced to lead the 'OUT' campaign himself - or resign. Moreover, considering that he has chosen to put before the cart before the horse and secure the necessary authorisation from the British people only after attempting to negotiate a new settlement, why should our European partners expend all the time and effort required to make the necessary changes to accommodate our country, knowing that its prime minister no longer has the authority to close the deal? Indeed, it is quite possible that he could win every concession on his shopping list (although what is on that list we do not yet know) and yet the public could still vote to leave the European Union. What is more, is that it will take four years to answer any of these questions at a time when the rest of the Union is undergoing a radical transformation to secure its very survival.

It is right we prioritise the British national interest above all else, but we cannot do this without first putting ourselves in the shoes of our partners on the other side of the negotiating table. However, I do passionately agree with Mr Cameron that our continued membership of the European Union is essential to preserving the national interest. So, how can we British pro-Europeans help our beleaguered prime minister?

The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats may oppose his proposals for an in/out referendum (for now) and rightly harbour serious concerns over his overall strategy, but neither is immune from anti-European dissent within their own ranks. The more they weaken the prime minister's position, the more they embolden opponents of EU membership as a whole and further jeopardise the national interest.

The genie is out of the bottle. A referendum has been promised and, according to consecutive opinion polls, is demanded by the British people. There is no room to manoeuvre. There is no going back. We must go through with it and we must win it. However, making such a referendum conditional on the outcome of the forthcoming negotiations is folly - not just because there is no guarantee that they will deliver the desired result, but also because it would be a false choice. Our place in the EU cannot be boiled down to a series of contractual agreements any more than a marriage between two people can be boiled down to a set of job descriptions. It is an ever-changing and evolving relationship as the Treaty of Rome's stated goal of 'ever closer union' clearly stipulates.

Any deal we negotiate now will be out of date in 20 years and will surely prompt renewed calls for yet another new deal and another referendum from those in the eurosceptic contingent who continue to fundamentally fail to understand how the EU works. Instead, we must address the democratic deficit within the Union itself to ensure the British people have a direct relationship with decision-makers in Brussels. We need an elected president and stronger powers for the already elected Parliament. We need an intensive public engagement programme, explaining to our fellow citizens how the EU works and how they can participate in the ongoing conversation about its indefinite evolution and the way in which that will affect, and ultimately improve, their everyday lives. The question we should be asking the country in any referendum, therefore, is whether they still wish to be part of that conversation.

This is the bold, ambitious, and open Europe that I want to see before the end of my lifetime and if the prime minister is willing to make it his priority too, then I am willing to support him all the way.

(The views expressed in this article are my personal opinions only and not the official position of the European Movement UK)]]>Why Debating Must Be Taught in Every School Across the Countrytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25169212013-01-21T08:36:59-05:002013-03-23T05:12:01-04:00Tony Koutsoumboshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-koutsoumbos/
By the way, did I mention these speakers were 11 years old? The week before they had been debating whether fashion prematurely sexualised young girls. This was no ordinary class. This was the debate club. Two years later and I now have the privilege of teaching debating to both children and adults for a living.

You can imagine my chagrin then, when Guardian columnist Barbara Ellen, writing in Comment is Free, responded to Shadow Education Secretary Stephen Twigg's commendable proposals that more state schools be encouraged to teach debating by saying: "a good education, in a stable school environment, with committed teachers, means more than any amount of extracurricular waffling".

What makes her think that one must come at the expense of the other? That wasn't the worst thing she said though. I reserve that honour for the following quote: "you can't just put debating societies into state schools and declare the problems of social inarticulacy and lack of confidence miraculously solved". Why not? After then appearing to assert that working class kids don't need debating anyway because the X-factor is their equivalent of public speaking, she finished with the casual throwaway remark: "State school pupils deserve more than some downgraded version of what the posh kids get". Such paternalistic snobbery has no place in the British education system.

Of course, it is merely my humble opinion that state school pupils are just as capable of learning how to construct an argument as their private school counterparts. It would probably help to have a little evidence. So, I decided to do something that Barbara Ellen, in her infinite wisdom, neglected to do: I talked to an actual state school teacher.

Kim Kotchanski is a science teacher at a Comprehensive in Berkshire. Educated in a state school herself, we met while at university together in Nottingham, where we were both active members of our student debating society. I asked Kim to read Ms Ellen's article and tell me what she thought.

This is just some of what she said:

"Debate is already in the curriculum. It's part of a balanced curriculum, from formulating a decent essay, to persuasive writing and speaking and listening skills in English, to how science works and considering the ethical applications. Debate encourages public speaking, confidence, and structure."

She continues....

"I've seen my London comp school hold their own against Eton and beat Harrow and a load of other grammar schools. They wonder around in awe of the facilities but then compete and take these kids on their own turf. What a better confidence boost to show the working class they are equals."

and in conclusion....

"Teens love having a say, they are getting what they want and learning lots at the same time: current affairs, critical thinking, persuasive speech, confidence, public speaking, summarising, thinking on your feet...and the resources argument makes no sense. Its cheaper than a science club. You need a pad of A4 paper. You need teachers time, granted, but build it in PHSCE or SEAL and it's no big deal."

Thank you Kim. Barbara, take note.

However, it is with only cautious optimism that I welcome the shadow Education Secretary's proposals. This is because it appears his only motivation for supporting debate lessons in state schools is to ensure that private schools do not have an unfair advantage. Does that mean that if private schools did not teach debating, he would see no reason for state schools to do it either? Speaking as someone who fervently believes that the purpose of education should be to promote equality of excellence and not just equality per se, Mr Twigg's insistence on prioritising the class divide over the best interests of each individual pupil, irrespective of their background, makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

Nevertheless, there is real potential here, precisely because the benefits of this policy are so much broader than even he may realise. Debating can be the silver bullet to apathy and ignorance. It can help to build a generation of active citizens who engage in their democracy, challenge bias and prejudice, and rigorously scrutinise figures of authority. Never has this been more important, with public distrust of politicians at a record high and turnout in local and national elections at a record low, than it is now.

In addition, it can also help to better connect schools and their students to the needs of the modern workplace. Indeed, several months ago, I carried out an informal poll on Linkedin of experienced professionals and business owners, 81% of whom said debating should be taught in schools owing to the dearth of basic presentation and analytical skills required of graduates and school leavers entering the job market.

Finally, speaking as someone who has watched timid wallflowers grow into gifted orators since I joined my first school debating club over ten years ago, I cannot overstate the phenomenal impact debating can have on the confidence of a child, especially one struggling to find their voice or assert themselves in the chaotic environment of the school playground.

Today, I look back at those 11 year old students taking highly complex social issues in their stride and my only complaint is that such clubs are the exception not the rule. Critical thinking and public speaking are techniques not abilities. Anyone can learn them. Presently, most don't. This has to change. Debating must be taught in every school across the country.]]>Pro-European and Proud!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23169622012-12-17T14:00:26-05:002013-02-16T05:12:01-05:00Tony Koutsoumboshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-koutsoumbos/
Now, both criticisms are perfectly valid and deserve to be aired, but when they appear in paragraphs one and two, while a brief mention of the Economist magazine's torpedoing of the case for Britain leaving the EU is relegated to paragraph three, I am left wondering if I have not just read a eurosceptic pamphlet with a fleeting pro-European reference added simply to present the illusion of editorial balance.

Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of a wider reluctance among pro-Europeans to 'out' themselves to their fellow Brits. Instead, they call themselves 'realists' or 'moderates' and refuse to characterise their support for the European project as anything more than detached national self-interest. They certainly dare not talk of a more deeply integrated Europe in the future. Rather, they portray the EU as a necessary evil that we tolerate because of it's importance to British business.

How did this happen? When did it become such a shameful thing to be pro-European and proud in this country? Why do politicians who sing the praises of Britain's membership of the EU in private, retreat in to the shadows in public? Why do the most vocal defenders of Europe's greatest ever achievement warn only of the dangers of withdrawal rather than share their vision of a united and prosperous union with Britain at its heart?

Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, suggested in his Blenheim Palace speech in September that "Britain today is living with false consciousness". Our interests lie in Europe, but we are more euroscpetic than ever. Interestingly, a brief review of the polling data suggests that suggests such hostility is far from endemic and that British public opinion is tied more to the performance of the UK economy than anything else. So, for example, when the Conservative party was tearing itself apart over Europe at the end of the boom period in the late 1980s and early 1990s, while European integration progressed at an unprecedented pace with the passage of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, support in Britain for continued membership of the EU was at a record high.

However, he continued, the case for our continued commitment to European unity was greater than ever, proclaiming that "in this new world, to leverage power, you need the heft of the EU. This is true in economics, in trade, in defence, foreign policy and global challenges such as climate change. It gives us a weight collectively that on our own we lack."

The next European elections take place in 2014. The last elections in 2009 saw the most openly pro-European party, the Liberal Democrats, stoop to urging their constituents to vote for them for no other reason than to stop the British National Party. When this is all the country's leading Europhiles have to say about one of the key pillars of the British constitution, then I am not surprised that so many people have flocked to the UK Independence Party.

Similarly, I am tired of hearing pro-Europeans bemoan their rise as if they have somehow broken the rules of modern politics. My advice: if you find yourself blaming a rival political party for all your problems, then the problem is you. I don't agree with UKIP and think (like any political party) they have some truly unsavoury members within their ranks, but I don't think singling them out for criticism is going to convince anyone to agree with me. I need to give them a reason to be pro-European, not just a reason to oppose eurosceptics.

Ultimately, UKIP's record in office will be their undoing with independent watchdog, Votewatch Europe, ranking them as delivering the worst value for money of all the British parties in the European Parliament. in the three years since 2009, their 13 MEPs have pocketed €15.6m of taxpayers' money in salary, staffing and office costs, yet 12 of them have tabled no reports whatsoever, while the average UKIP MEP - who earns a basic salary of £80,000 p/a - has allegedly missed a third of all votes in Parliament, their leader Nigel Farage being one of the worst offenders. Sunlight is a far better disinfectant than negative campaigning.

I hereby lay down a challenge for any candidate and any party that calls themselves pro-European. Don't tell me who not to vote for. Don't beg me to endorse the status quo of bank bailouts, economic stagnation, and political sclerosis. Don't pressure me with apocalyptic prophecies of Mayan proportions.

Tell me what Europe should look like in 20 years and tell me how we get there. Inspire me with a vision of a truly united continent that will confine centuries of war to the history books forever. Lead me towards a Europe that has the power to protect liberal democracy from the rising tide of authoritarianism in the East, and the solidarity to secure an equal partnership with our allies in the West.

I have an ever-lasting faith in the British people that a combination of purposeful pragmatism and impassioned idealism will ultimately prevail over isolationism and xenophobia. So, stand tall fellow europhiles and let me hear you say: 'I am pro-European and proud!']]>Where Is the Greek Diaspora?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21958202012-11-27T19:00:00-05:002013-01-27T05:12:01-05:00Tony Koutsoumboshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-koutsoumbos/
I want to help. I do what little I can for my own family, who live in Greece now - some in Athens and the rest in the rural villages of Laconia, but I want to help my country too. Anyone who knows me may think that a little strange. After all, I am a born and bred Brit with an English accent so acute, you could probably pin down which road in north London I grew up in with nothing more than a recording of my voice. However, my father is Greek and his entire family before him is Greek. My grandfather fought in a world war and a civil war for Greece. My aunts and uncles married and raised families in Greece. My cousins were educated in Greece. They are all a part of me. They all played a significant role in my upbringing. They all consider me to be one of them. If Greece is their country, then it is my country too.

So, I started to look around on the internet for more information on what the Greek diaspora is doing to help the homeland. Gregory Pappas, President of the Greek America foundation bemoaned the lack of support shown by the Greek American community, traditionally a powerful force whose lobbying efforts have frequently given Congress and the White House a headache, especially in their dealings with Turkey.

Writing in The Huffington Post UK earlier this year, he said:

"I am embarrassed to admit that my own community - good people who work tirelessly and passionately every day for the promotion of the Greek faith, heritage, language, history and ideals - have been absent thus far from the conversation about how we can help Greece - or more importantly, how we can help Greeks right now."

Shipping heir, Peter Nomikos, appears to be bucking the trend. He is the founder of Greece Debt Free, a non-political, non-governmental, internet and social media-based mechanism for Greeks and philhellenes to support Greece. The plan is simple: cancel the Greek debt by buying bonds on the secondary market at a reduced rate with donations from communities across the world. Incidentally, almost a third of the donors so far are from Germany. So, maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read in Der Spiegel or the Daily Mail after all. Australia too, with its vibrant Greek community, has been chipping in, providing a home for over 2,500 Greeks who have had no choice but to leave their country.

What about the UK? The Office of National Statistics estimates the number of Greek-born UK residents at around 290,000. The figure for ethnic Greeks living in the UK (that's me) is around 400,000. A sizeable chunk of this community lives right here in London, with the highest concentration in Hyde Park, Regent's Park, Chelsea, and Kensington - these folks have clearly done well for themselves.

The Hellenic Centre has a list of all affiliated organisations, which include: the Anglo-Hellenic League, the Hellenic Bankers Association, and the Hellenic Medical Society. All three share the same web page which has one event advertised for November 2012 and absolutely no information on what they are doing for Greeks in Greece. London Greek Radio (LGR) another hub for the Greek community had plenty of disturbing news items on its website including a new poll which showed neo-fascist Group Golden Dawn now in third place with 10.5%. Nothing though on the diaspora, what they are doing (if anything), or how to get involved.

So, this is my request: I want to make contact with all the unsung heroes throughout the global diaspora who are already doing their bit; most importantly though, I want to help bring out of the woodwork all the Greeks living in the UK who, like me, fear for their families and the future of their country. If just one person emerges with a bold idea of how to help, then I will consider it a great achievement and the least I can do for the country and the people who helped make me the person I am today.]]>